Search

Background: The use of image guidance systems has gained widespread acceptance as an adjunctive tool for endoscopic sinus surgery. However, the accessibility and usage of this technology is variable across hospitals in Canada. Study objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the availability, usage, and related issues surrounding the use of image guidance systems in endoscopic sinus surgery across Canadian otolaryngology practice settings. Methods: An online survey was electronically distributed to practicing otolaryngologists across Canada. The survey contained 27 questions pertaining to the availability, usage, barriers and overall experience of image guidance systems. Results: The survey was electronically sent to a total of 654 Canadian otolaryngologists of which 158 responded (response rate 24.2%). Image guidance was available to 56.3% of respondents. Of the respondents without access to IGS, 85.5% indicated they would use it if it was available. Financial (capital cost) was identified as the most important barrier in obtaining IGS by 76.3% of respondents. Conclusion: Over half of Canadian otolaryngologists have access to IGS with over 85% of those without access interested in using it if it was made available. A multitude of different factors contribute to this disparity. We hope that the results of this study will help support Canadian otolaryngologists to access IGS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery (CSO-HNS) task force published recommendations on performance of tracheotomy. Since then, our understanding of the virus has evolved with ongoing intensive research efforts. New literature has helped us better understand various aspects including patient outcomes and health care worker (HCW) risks associated with tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the task force has re-evaluated and revised some of the previous recommendations. Main body: Based on recent evidence, a negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 swab status is no longer the main deciding factor in the timing of tracheotomy. Instead, tracheotomy may be considered as soon as COVID-19 swab positive patients are greater than 20 days beyond initial symptoms and 2 weeks of mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, both open and percutaneous surgical techniques may be considered with both techniques showing similar safety and outcome profiles. Additional recommendations with discussion of current evidence are presented. Conclusion: These revised recommendations apply new evidence in optimizing patient and health care system outcomes as well as minimizing risks of COVID-19 transmission during aerosol-generating tracheotomy procedures. As previously noted, additional evidence may lead to further evolution of these and other similar recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent evidence suggests that biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). There remains a population in CRSwNP that despite medical therapy and endoscopic sinus surgery have persistent signs and symptoms of disease. Therefore, biologics, monoclonal antibody agents, could be beneficial therapeutic treatments for these patients. There have been eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL-5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. However, there are no formal recommendations for the optimal use of biologics in managing Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) within the Canadian health care environment. Methods: A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. 17 fellowship trained rhinologists across Canada evaluated the 28 original statements on a scale of 1–10 and provided comments. A rating within 1–3 indicated disagreement, 8–10 demonstrated agreement and 4–7 represented being neutral towards a statement. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range and standard deviation. Consensus was defined by removing the highest and lowest of the scores and using the "3 point relaxed system". Results: After three rounds, a total of 11 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with CRS. Conclusion: This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of patients with CRS, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need for controlled trials to guide the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The authors performed a pilot multicenter trial to compare two types of saline delivery devices in this population. Methods: Patients were randomized to high volume saline irrigation with a squeeze bottle and low volume saline spray after ESS in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Surgeons were blinded to treatment, and one-month postoperative scores for sinonasal outcomes [Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22)] scale, nasal and sinus symptom score (NSS), and perioperative sinus endoscopy (POSE) scale were compared with preoperative scores. Results: Nine centers provided data for 86 patients. All three outcomes measures improved significantly for both groups. Saline spray: SNOT-22 48.8 versus. 23.7, treatment effect 25.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.9-32.2), POSE 21.1 versus. 8.4, treatment effect 12.7 (95% CI, 9.2-16.1), and NSS 8.2 versus 5.0, treatment effect 3.1 (95% CI, 1.4-4.9) pre- and postoperatively, respectively (all p < 0.0001). Squeeze bottle: SNOT-22 49.5 versus 23.6, treatment effect 25.9 (95% CI, 20.3-31.6), POSE 18.6 versus 9.2, treatment effect 9.3, (95% CI 6.7-12.0), and NSS 9.0 versus 5.7, treatment effect 3.3 (95% CI, 2.3-4.3) pre- and postoperatively, respectively (all p < 0.0001). Analysis of variance did not identify a difference between the two treatment groups. Subgroup analysis based on preoperative disease severity did not change the nonassociation of saline bottle with outcome measures. Post hoc sample size calculation determined that 176 patients is required to detect an 8.9-point difference in SNOT-22 scores. Conclusion: In this pilot multicenter trial examining patients with chronic rhinosinusitis undergoing ESS, both squeeze bottle and saline spray showed significant improvement in SNOT-22, POSE, and NSS scores at one-month postoperatively. Because the study was nonpowered, we cannot rule out a potential difference between the two treatment groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]